Hi Everybody!
My name is Arnon Maria de Kroon, and this is my very first time blogging. The photo to the left is of my daughter and me at Bellagio on Lake Como, Italy, in April this year.
My reason for blogging is that I am sick and tired of talking at the radio every morning when people phone in and voice the most ridiculous comments, without much forethought or investigation, on everything from global warming to urban consolidation! This "pub-talk" I find very frustrating - so much mis-information and drivel so early in the day, from both radio announcers and the general public.
To be a climate change skeptic is politically incorrect in some circles. However, I do feel that humans are not THE cause of climate change in the context of global warming, [the enhanced greenhouse effect]. This is not to say that we play no part in climate change. Humans are most certainly contributors to the warming of the earth's atmosphere. Just HOW much we contribute to the "change" is what I question. What is the significance/contribution of solar flare activity, volcanic explosions and natural cyclical change to the current warming trend? What is important is that we can control our contribution and should so do; however, we should not become hysterical about it.
The usual follow-on from humans being "Number-one-climate-change cause", is the cry about rising sea levels, i.e. eustatic change. "We'll all be swamped if we live on the coasts!!" Recent headlines to sell newspapers and TV news broadcasts; this generated much uninformed discussion. Unfortunately, given our predilection to build on, and inhabit, the primary dunes throughout the world this fate is inevitable, despite any perceived or real eustatic change. WHY?
Sandy beach/dune systems are regularly eroded, [due to seasonal stormy conditions - winter in southern Australia and summer in northern Australia], with the beach and the primary dune being mostly affected. The secondary dune is generally not touched by marine erosion; however, it may be affected by wind erosion. So if we were to build anything on a primary dune then it would be inevitable that these structures/buildings would eventually be destroyed, if expensive management strategies were not put in place to save the buildings. Some management strategies used throughout the world include: sand dumping from areas where sand is plentiful to areas suffering erosion, sand pumping from off-shore, rip-rap walls, off-shore breakwaters, dune reconstruction and vegetation with appropriate species, etc. Building concrete walls exacerbates the problem, so does sand-bagging. So build in the wrong place in a sandy beach/dune system then you run the risk of losing your property if the Council or State Government does nothing to manage the situation. Climate change is a side issue regarding this scenario. However, the media [and listeners to/viewers of the radio/TV and readers of newspapers], somehow are making climate change [i.e. enhanced greenhouse effect], the reason for this potential property loss. NO! It is the cyclical change, i.e. between times of constructive and destructive wave patterns, that determines what happens to the beaches and dunes. If we upset this coastal geomorphological dynamic equilibrium then we pay the price - loss of buildings and much money to be paid out in insurance. So what do we do to manage these past planning mistakes? Pay, pay and pay some more ... and implement the above-mentioned strategies.
SOLUTION? We should NEVER have built on the primary dune/foredune in the first place! So, does the whole community continue to subsidise sand management strategies for coastal development via taxes? Or do we leave all those ill-placed buildings alone and let nature take its course? What is to be done? In the future, worldwide, we, the community, should ensure that our Councils, in giving planning approval to developers, should not allow such poorly placed developments to occur. Clearly "a pie-in-the-sky" notion as Councils/governments globally generally like to see coastal developments - the seachange phenomenon does not help the cause to keep primary dunes free. However, "Build behind the primary dune" should be the mantra. Or, if these developments do occur, then it should be incumbent on the buyers of these properties, "in prime, seaside locations" to foot the bill of managing their CHOICE of lifestyle and not the general public footing the bill. After all, those dunes, if left in their natural condition, would erode and aggrade with the seasons as happened prior to humans ever having built there.
So, has climate change instigated, or will instigate, coastal property loss as recently described in the media? Not really - the potential to lose valuable coastal property was there LONG BEFORE the debate on the enhanced greenhouse effect began. The climate change debate requires a context that can be validated at every turn. Does eustatic change due to climate change present a new problem? What about isostatic rebound? What role will this isostatic rebound play when glaciers and terrestrial ice sheets continue to melt? Will it offset the eustatic change?
Interesting questions ...
Bye for now
Arnon
